crimmigration.com

The intersection of criminal law and immigration law

  • Home
  • About César
  • Articles
  • Books
  • Talks & Media

8th Circuit: § 212(c) relief available even if convicted after trial

In a case released late last week, the 8th Circuit held that relief from removal under former INA § 212(c) continues to exist for individuals who were convicted after a jury trial.  INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 314-26 (2001), clearly stands for the proposition that individuals who pled guilty while § 212(c) was still in effect may still seek relief under § 212(c).  Lovan v. Holder, No. 08-2177, slip op. at 3.  

The 8th Circuit then considered the trickier issue of whether St. Cyr’s holding applies to individuals, like Lovan, who were convicted by a jury.  After noting that there exists a circuit split on this issue, the 8th Circuit elected to follow the 3rd Circuit’s decision in Atkinson v. Attorney General, 479 F.3d 222, 230-31 (3d Cir. 2007).  In Atkinson, the 3rd Circuit concluded that a non-citizen does not have to show “actual reliance” to seek § 212(c) relief.  479 F.3d at 230.  In this way, the 3rd Circuit—and now the 8th Circuit—disagrees with the 5th Circuit’s position that a non-citizen who was convicted after a trial must show actual reliance on the possibility of § 212(c) relief to be eligible for that relief now.  See Carranza-De Salinas v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 200, 206-09 (5th Cir. 2007); see also Wilson v. Gonzalez, 471 F.3d 111, 122 (2nd Cir. 2006).

This case is great news for immigration attorneys.  In the continuing saga of § 212(c) relief, the 8th Circuit has now aligned itself with the previously lonely 3rd Circuit as the most immigrant-friendly position: § 212(c) relief is available without a showing of actual reliance.  See Atkinson, 479 F.3d at 230-31.  According to the 8th Circuit’s summary, the 2nd and 5th Circuit currently hold that § 212(c) relief exists for individuals convicted after a trial but only if they show actual reliance on the possibility of relief.  See, e.g., Restrepo v. McElroy, 369 F.3d 627, 631-40 (2nd Cir. 2004); Carranza-Salinas, 477 F.3d at 206-09.  Meanwhile, the 1st, 7th, and 9th Circuits hold that § 212(c) relief is not available to individuals who were convicted after a trial.  See, e.g., Dias v. INS, 311 F.3d 456, 458 (1st Cir. 2002); Montenegro v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1035, 1037 (7th Cir. 2004); Armendariz-Montoya v. Sonchik, 291 F.3d 1116, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2002).

The 8th Circuit also did a wonderful job of discussing the evolution of § 212(c), especially the comparable grounds requirement.  This is one of the most comprehensible explanations of the comparable grounds requirement that I have read.  Lovan v. Holder, No. 08-2177, slip op. at 5-8.

  • Share via Facebook
  • Share via LinkedIn
  • Share via Twitter
  • Share via Email

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Posted by César on August 4, 2009 on 2:32 pm 4 Comments
Filed Under: Uncategorized

Comments

  1. Tramadol. says

    March 30, 2010 at 11:04 pm

    Tramadol 180.

    What is tramadol used for. Tramadol dog. Tramadol tablets. Tramadol. What is tramadol 93.

    Reply
  2. Zyban wellbutrin bupropion hcl. says

    December 2, 2010 at 11:33 pm

    Zyban wellbutrin bupropion hcl.

    Versus wellbutrin zyban. Zyban wellbutrin vs. Zyban wellbutrin bupropion hcl. Zyban wellbutrin and smoking. Vs wellbutrin zyban. Zyban and wellbutrin same ingredients.

    Reply
  3. rayban says

    June 27, 2013 at 2:41 pm

    rayban

    An impressive share, I just given this onto a colleague who was doing a little evaluation on this. And he in fact bought me breakfast as a result of I discovered it for him.. smile. So let me reword that: Thnx for the deal with! But yeah Thnkx for spending the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love reading more on this topic. If attainable, as you turn out to be experience, would you mind updating your weblog with extra details? It is highly helpful for me. Massive thumb up for this weblog submit!

    Reply
  4. Cheap Oakley Oil Rig says

    July 11, 2013 at 11:51 pm

    Cheap Oakley Oil Rig

    Nice answer back in return of this question with real arguments and telling the whole thing on the topic of that.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to rayban Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe


Recent Posts

  • Supreme Court says Biden can end MPP
  • Uvalde massacre & immigration law aid
  • Mistakes aren’t reviewable, Supreme Court says
  • ICE prosecutorial discretion guidance
  • Supreme Court again considers ICE’s detention powers
  • Troubled contractor gets $180 million to hold young migrants

Search

Social Media

Blawg 100 Honoree

The information contained on these pages must not be considered legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. This work by www.crImmigration.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.